Fishing about and about fishing

COMMENTS FOR MSC 

 

Recently MSC asked for public comment on the main criteria of its environmental standards for sustainable fishing. This was a good thing to do and I’d sincerely hope that many people responded. No doubt, MSC is feeling the need for increasing the general understanding of what MSC is about and for strengthening its image as objective and trustworthy enterprise. 

 

It was probably both, a criticism from outside and also from inside the organization that gave birth to this process. It is expected to: (1) Improve the clarity of the MSC's environmental standard; (2) Help fisheries understand what MSC’s certification bodies will be looking for during the assessment process; (3) Facilitate the participation of stakeholders during the assessment process; (4) Improve clarity for certification bodies during the preparation phase of assessment; 

and:  (5) Help expert assessment teams score fisheries consistently, whatever the fishery's size, type or location.

 

When in the late 1990s MSC developed its certification principles and criteria, it based them on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and on other international conservation agreements.

 

MSC’s main three principles required that: (1) fish stocks are maintained at healthy levels; (2) the eco-system is fully functional and fishing activity does not threaten biological diversity; (3) the fishery is managed effectively and in accordance with the FAO precautionary approach. 

 

Since, MSC has certified over 20 fish-supplying firms and 22 fisheries with 17 more in various stages of assessment and certification. In the meantime, also, important changes took place in its managing staff.

 

  To make everybody happy in such an endeavour is undoubtedly a tall order. It would be a wonder if MSC would not come from time to time under criticism. I have never been surprised by outpourings coming from parties disagreeing, rightly or wrongly, with that or other of MSC’s judgments.  

 

Seven years ago, upon MSC’s invitation, I attended a “senior advisors” meeting, and wrote some recommendations, which I submitted to MSC’s board.

I believe, those recommendations, a selection of which I published in the July 2004 issue of SAMUDRA Report, are still relevant, particularly with respect to 3 important and inter-related issues: 

a – its public image; b – certification process; c – MSC Principles and Criteria (P&C). 

 

Public image.  It seems that some consumers are getting used to MSC logo as indicating fish that are taken from not overfished stocks. So far so good. But, to keep it going, MSC must maintain an image of full scientific and public-wise integrity and to be seen as an environment and fishery resources oriented public, non-profit organization that uses market motivation to promote rational fishing. Nevertheless, in the eyes of skeptics, it may appear as an enviro-business, which, while ensuring its own financial welfare, is selling its customers the chance that the MSC logo would upgrade their products' market value. Others may see it as fishery industries related business' answer to "green anti-fishing" campaigns. 

 

Certification process.  Like justice, integrity must not only be done, but also be evident. But MSC has left the cost and financial arrangements of certification to direct negotiations between the representatives of the fishery to be certified and the certifying consultancy firms. Such procedure is open to various "arrangements" between the negotiating parties. An old maxim says: “It is the hole not the mouse that’s the guilty one” 

 

My suggestion to MSC was that it makes the financial arrangements with the certifying firm and then collects the due from the client. Thus, no monies change hands between the certified and the certifiers. Such procedure would allow MSC to arrange for "discounts" and "soft-payments" in deserving cases, especially when certifying Third-World countries’ fisheries.

 

 MSC principles and criteria. Only a few of the world’s smaller scale fisheries can meet the present standards involved with MSC certification and pay for it. Nevertheless, sometime towards the end of the 20th century  MSC has decided to stay clear of adopting a special approach and P&C case-tailored to small-scale fisheries.  This made it a tool for increasing the market appeal of fish from large and rich fisheries and the related producers, processors and suppliers, which made MSC, at least in the eyes of the people affected, a pro-big-business enterprise favouring the rich and strong by giving their fish a better market chance.

 

The MSC present criteria require management and data one meets only in industrial countries. Therefore, a fishery that perhaps owing to its traditional management system shows long-term sustainability and certainly deserves an MSC label won’t be able to get it.

 

But also fisheries lacking the management methodologies needed for MSC certification can be assessed. For example, don’t many years of stable landings and effort indicate a sustainable fishery? MSC should consider a revision of its criteria to meet the needs of all deserving fisheries, large or small-scale, throughout the world.

 

Aquaculture. MSC has kept clear of the treacherous waters of marine aquaculture. On the one hand, the share of farmed fish in total foodfish production, including marine and estuarine/lagunar species, has been continually increasing. On the other hand, however, many aquaculture practices have become controversial, from the points of view of product quality and protection of marine habitats, wild stocks, and high fishmeal requirements. But why shouldn’t fish raised in sustainable aquaculture systems and fed with the right food be certified? Here comes the problem of commercial competition between aquaculture and fishing. But MSC shouldn’t be affected by such considerations and should certify any fish that are fished or grown with good practices while censuring bad ones by default. 

 

Certification in the fish farming sector, both finfish and shellfish, would encourage introduction of technological and other solutions for excess pollution due to cage, fish escapes, and broadcasting of parasites and diseases to wild stocks. This would require drafting of aquaculture-specific P&C and if MSC won’t take up the glove, others would.

 

Notwithstanding, one shouldn’t forget that the MSC label indicates good practices only with respect to fish, but not with respect to fishing people.